Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 6121166" data-attributes="member: 14506">Remarkably I don't see this as an issue. I dont really see an issue with who rolls for effect. A wizard who casts a fireball should be mad because he does not get to roll to attack them all? To me that just seems silly. However I do see your point about it being a DEX attack roll. That is an issue.Here is an option I could get behind, rays and ranged touch attacks roll to hit and the target if hit roll to save vs effect. In many of the early editions this is how it worked for the low level spells. The upper level rays automatically hit and no roll was necessary. They only saved vs. effect.Example: scorching ray the 3e version (the 5e version is crap, machine gun rays... really) gave a 4d6 damage ray. In 1e/2e that ray would have auto hit but the person might have made a save to reduce the damage by 1/2. I do not have an issue with going back to this, rays that auto-hit work for me. Then again I would also not be opposed to rolling to hit and then target rolls for save. I just don't like the binary of the attack roll. In 3e I always wished that ray of enfeeblement had a save for reduced effect. If rays auto-hit ray of enfeeblement could be something like reduce STR by 1d6 + 1/2 level for fail for 1 minute per level OR the same for 1 round if made. With an attack roll it is hit or miss period.I think I have just talked myself out of agreeing. Rays and touch attacks should be auto-hits with saves vs. effect.</blockquote>

Verification